| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think good characters would be compassionate within reason and many lawful characters should be uncomfortable with slaughtering foes that have surrendered. Since the dwarf has the wyrmscourged trait, I think he should be especially amenable to assisting the goblins. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and the goblins reported that the dragon instigated their interactions with the townsfolk. I’d give the goblins the benefit of the doubt—notch their ears or some such and tell them not to mess with the town anymore. Then I’d go kick the dragon’s ass so the goblins have no need to mess with the town anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you kill opponents who surrender to you, you end up with no one ever surrendering to you again after word gets out that you kill people who surrender. That's an inefficient use of resources, as you end up using spells and healing after you don't have to.
On the other hand, goblins are notorious for poor impulse control and have one of the worst alignments for surrender: NE, the selfish-evil alignment.
If they're close enough to raid the village, they're close enough to drop them off relatively easily and adventure further. Whatever happens after that has been lawfully done and is someone else's problem.
They're not automatically an alignment, so they can be reformed if you care to and they care to change. IF you want to go further, make it the village priestess' problem.
Sounds to me like the players are handling it okay. If the game were to come to a screeching halt due to arguing, then step in as a friend, playing with a group of friends and explain that this is disrupting the game and it's not fun for you and probably not fun for anyone else, especially if there's arguing.
If you're wondering what to do with the goblins after they become prisoners in the town, you have a lot of options. They could work off their crimes in the fields, but get fed, then actually become members of society... albeit, annoying members of society. The party could also come back and find their heads on poles outside the town to warn other goblins.
Also, while a lawful neutral alignment wouldn't have a problem just killing them and being done with it, that sounds more like CN to me. If they told the goblins that they wouldn't be killed, then the player of the LN character should be reminded of that.
Wait? A dwarf paladin? Are you a worshiper of torag?
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
I would lean towards killing the goblins- they are traditional enemies of your people, even if you aren't that obsessed with them yourself. Yeah, I am also a bit confused about how the 'kill 'em all' style is LG- I guess the underdark makes everything a bit crazy.
Of course, the GM could easily manipulate your other traits to get you to spare the goblins. As you said- you are more concerned about dragons than goblins, and you are more willing to compromise for the 'strategic information' on the dragon. if the goblins say "we'll tell you where to find the dragon if you spare us", and you agree... well then, you are honor bound to keep your word.
I suppose promising to defeat the dragon for them might implicitly promise 'we won't kill you' too.
Anyway, taking them to town doesn't seem viable. Goblins are typically treated like pests to be exterminated because they threaten livestock- much like a coyote or wolf. The guards would probably just kill them for you. At best, they might be turned into some kind of slave, or side show type thing. If you don't want to kill them, it is better just to threaten them to stay away from human settlements. Which might be much, much easier without a dragon's territory to worry about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They surrendered, that makes them noncombatants.
Killing noncombatants is murder.
Murder is evil.
As cut-and-dried as something as subjective as 'good/evil' gets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, if the party is arguing for more than 10 minutes here's what happen :
That's some pretty heavy-handed bad GMing right there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They surrendered, that makes them noncombatants.
Killing noncombatants is murder.
Murder is evil.As cut-and-dried as something as subjective as 'good/evil' gets.
Yeah. I still wonder why dwarves are not LE.
The entire reason why there is an orc problem is because the dwarves went on an insane 'quest for the sky', and instead of just passing through orc lands peacefully... they harried and pushed the orcs the entire way to the surface (I think after a couple miles of pushing, even orcs would say "you want through? Then go! I just want to go home!"). (I also feel like this paints the entire social relationship of those races with the surfface world; dwarves were prepared for their journey and had enough supplies to set up in an uninhabited area, while orcs were refugees with no supplies forced to raid to survive)
I can understand the logic of torag's paladin code (when you live in the underdark, most races are insane, and letting them go just lets them report back your location, and then they come back to murder your children)... but I do not get why torag is lawful "good".
They surrendered, that makes them noncombatants.
Not...quite.
Surrender can be offered, but circumstances may require that it be rejected. (This is where many parties in this situation screw up, because once they accept, then they're burdened.)
-- # --
Goblins: "We surrender!"
Paladin: "You have been found guilty of numerous counts of murder, arson, cannibalism, robbery, and destruction of crops, livestock, and other properties of the realm and its peoples I am sworn to defend and of whom I have been duly authorized to dispense justice in the field!"
(As he speaks as a free action during the parley, paladin turns on the hi-beams and also makes some Sense Motive checks.)
Goblins: "Spare us! We'll be 'good'! We promise!" <attempt bluff checks>
Paladin, continuing: "With your spurious 'surrender', you hope to burden this patrol, tax its resources, and distract our attention in the hopes that others of your raiding party will soon return to the even the odds. Even as we speak, your evil shaman mutters spells under her breath to bolster you. So, 'Nay!', I say; for your crimes are capital, and the warranted punishment will be carried out. Raise your weapons, attack, and receive a swift, merciful death, for your overdue judgment is at hand!"
As a GM, if the party is arguing for more than 10 minutes here's what happen :
DM : As you are arguing, you hear footstep comming your way and see that 4 of the town guard (or milicia) have come to help you. They offer to take the goblin back into town for you.
if the magus still want to kill them :
DM : There's a reward for bringing them alive.
if the magus still want to kill them :
DM : A cave-in fall between you and the rest of the party. I guess they are going to be escorted by the guard anyway.
Better:
Sergeant, to the murderhobo PC: "Are ye daft, ya blighter? Stick 'em and it'll be your face drawn up on the 'reward' notices. I personally don't mind seeing gobs get what's coming, but the earl has something special lined up, and 'tis why he wants 'em *alive*. I like watching 'special' events too."
Kill em... They are likely to be repeat offenders if allowed to live and are unlikely to be reformed into useful members of society. So I vote alongside the Magus. Kill the vermin. ;)
Then on a practical issue, if you drag every random bad guy back to the town do you know how long a trip can take you? It might take you a month to make a 3 day trip.
If you accept their surrender, you are bound to protect them from yourselves.
I like Slim Jim's logic though. Just because they offer their surrender doesn't mean the paladin has to accept it.
In that situation, I would have accepted their surrender and moved on to the dragon. Afterwards I would have informed the goblins that for their crimes they must leave the land in one week. When I got back to town, I would have told a new group of adventurers about the goblins and sent them to clear them out. That's a good 1st level adventure. The goblins probably wouldn't have stuck to their word, so their deaths at that point are warranted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, how would you handle these Goblins?
WU..WU...WUUTT???? Hold there a min!!!!
First, we goblins are not THAT evil, ok? we are just SO HUNGRY ALL THE TIME. Have you even tried to live with a hunger like that? i can even eat 3 times my weight!!
Second, that was OUR CAVE, and you, "heroes" came here to kill Igor and Paolo and then tie the rest of us just to argue about the ethics of not killing your prissioners!! Come on!! this is why we allways eat your children, if you have the chance to grow you became weirrrrrrdddddd.
Third; VERMIN??? HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR FACE????
fourth; i like that dwarf beard, its just like a brown cloud...and i like clouds, Paolo used to like them too.
fifth: Dind't we say something about a DRAGON? i mean...you people are weird.
Oh, and just to end this chitty tall folk nonsense chat...yes, we are evil, no, you should not feel bad about killing us in normal situations but if you are in doubt, just think from other perspective.
Would you think that we are evil if we tie someone up and then we kill him?
If the answer is yes, then you are evil too...WELCOME TO THE PARTY
That goblin makes a good point HERE HERE I say^ don't pick on us tiny slightly evil races just because we are different and occasionally steal your food and stuff. Kinders steal stuff all the time but I don't see you going and burning their villages down!
That goblin makes a good point HERE HERE I say^ don't pick on us tiny slightly evil races just because we are different and occasionally steal your food and stuff. Kinders steal stuff all the time but I don't see you going and burning their villages down!
Damn right!!! and i dont even mention the love of this people for that horrible and ugly creatures called dogs. Damn, i almost puke thinking in that puppys
That goblin makes a good point HERE HERE I say^ don't pick on us tiny slightly evil races just because we are different and occasionally steal your food and stuff. Kinders steal stuff all the time but I don't see you going and burning their villages down!Damn right!!! and i dont even mention the love of this people for that horrible and ugly creatures called dogs. Damn, i almost puke thinking in that puppys
Also when we go kill those gnomes?
Also when we go kill those gnomes?That goblin makes a good point HERE HERE I say^ don't pick on us tiny slightly evil races just because we are different and occasionally steal your food and stuff. Kinders steal stuff all the time but I don't see you going and burning their villages down!Damn right!!! and i dont even mention the love of this people for that horrible and ugly creatures called dogs. Damn, i almost puke thinking in that puppys
It seems i'm tied up already, i think u can go brunch and then just send me a bird with a note. Be sure you dont like the bird too much, i'm hungry, this folks didnt even feed us.
It seems i'm tied up already, i think u can go brunch and then just send me a bird with a note. Be sure you dont like the bird too much, i'm hungry, this folks didnt even feed us.Also when we go kill those gnomes?That goblin makes a good point HERE HERE I say^ don't pick on us tiny slightly evil races just because we are different and occasionally steal your food and stuff. Kinders steal stuff all the time but I don't see you going and burning their villages down!Damn right!!! and i dont even mention the love of this people for that horrible and ugly creatures called dogs. Damn, i almost puke thinking in that puppys
They no feed! now that evil! they be better to kill then no feed!
No feed almost as bad as take candle and all know NO TAKE CANDLE!
but what if the goblins in question have only raided the town for food and their surrender was sincere?
How would the party know if it was? Have you set up a world where non-evil goblins live? Is it a known factor in the world? If not, it's a pretty big leap of faith that THESE goblin are an exception to the norm.
So it's NOT that they are sincere but does the party have a realistic reason for thinking they are. Have you set the groundwork for them to think it's possible?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, now i'm talking serious, because it seems that nobody cared about what i said because of the comic tone i used.
You really have a big problem here. Your problem is that you are being evil with evil creatures. I will write it again, you are being EVIL with evil creatures.
Even if your enemy is a monster and you want to be good aligned or, at least, dont act like an evildoer would do, you must keep on the good side of the history here.
There's no excuse to someone that takes prissioners and sly them while they are defenseless, even if they are assasins, its not your job to judge them if you are not playing that kind of scenario.
I'm talking about good aligned players here, i dont care about your neutral wizard, for me it seems that he's just a neutral evil disguised player. "Kill that vermin while they cant defend themselfs" yeah, that sound evil enough for me.
What i'm saying is that the alignement of your enemy doesnt matter when you are talking about doing something good or bad, if you kill a murderer, you are still killing, and if you are doing it for a greater good, you are a murderer for a greater good. That goblin could be good aligned and nothing would change the fact that they raided a town, right? well, the same applys for you.
It really pissed me of when my players act like this and pretend they are the good people of the history. Heroes are made by sacrifice, just as batman oath to avoid killing, even if that keeps him fighting over and over, or captain america when he had to turn into an outlaw because he believed his friend was innocent. Heroes do whatever is correct, whatever is good, whatever is need to be done because is the right thingn to do, even if that cost them to take some goblins to justice, or to believe they can redeem themselves and turn into usefull folks.
If you are not willing to do that sacrife, or you decide to take the easiest path just because its easier and you dont believe in changing, then you are not the hero of this history, and you dont need to be, this game is about adventuring. But please, dont play like you have exuses to be evil, or to do simething that's not right just because of the situation, because thats not correct, evil acts are evil, no matter the situation that forced you to do it, you still did it.
Now, with that in mind, i think you should understand better what your paladin has to do. Of course this is just my oppinion, but in that case, i wont allow anyone in my party to sly a surrendered enemy, even if i have to defend them against you, because there's no excuse for cruelty when you are a paladin, there's no room for "slightly evil acts", and of course, there's no room to consider an enemy something worthless just because his, her, or it alignement
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but what if the goblins in question have only raided the town for food and their surrender was sincere?How would the party know if it was? Have you set up a world where non-evil goblins live? Is it a known factor in the world? If not, it's a pretty big leap of faith that THESE goblin are an exception to the norm.
So it's NOT that they are sincere but does the party have a realistic reason for thinking they are. Have you set the groundwork for them to think it's possible?
This, this kind of point of view is the problem here.
"how should i know this goblin was different?"
So you basicaly are saying that you can sly them, no matter the way you do it, just because the book say they are used to do evil things. You dont even need to make some investigations, because that race use to be bad, so...even if i'm the hero here i'm going to sly you and nothing will change.
This kind of argument is pretty obsolete for me. However, i'm an experienced DM not only in D&D but in human and vampire, so i'm accostumed to make my players think twice before they shot, or they will face the psicological consecuences, but i think pathfinder is a good setting to play as a real hero.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As PCs, we know that none of the townsfolk have been injured in the goblin raids, just that food and livestock have been stolen. And I'm pretty sure the goblin was telling the truth when he told us that they only raided because they were hungry (tbh at this point I can't remember if any of us failed or passed our sense motive checks... lol Maybe my DM or some of the other players can chime in here if they remember).
As far as the sincerity of their surrender, we're playing the Pathfinder beginner box wherein I think the goblins are supposed to try and broker some kind of truce with the PCs. The dragon invaded their home and they want him gone... enemy of my enemy kind of situation I think.
And, in all honesty, my DM is probably just making them "good" because this whole scenario is not going in the direction he was expecting. So as far as some kind of groundwork for good goblins... no idea lol
I'll give a twist to this situation, so maybe you and your fellows can see why this situation or the sincerity of the goblins are far from being a solid part of your decitions.
"You are tied, a group of evil people raided you, you have already lost 2 members of your party, and your actual captors are talking about killing you all or not killing you al while you cant defend yourself. One of them say "lets kill them, they are vermin" and so on, they conclude that you are not worthy of mercy.
All you did, and you have told them, was to raid a town because you were starving, but it doesnt matter since the people in front of you doesnt seem to have any relation with that townfolks"
-"But i'm telling the truth!"- you scream to the evil party.
-"We dont care, you are good aligned, so you deserve this"-
If you think this situation is something that will happen with an evildoer, then you should think deep and calm about the fact that you were the ones who did this, just because the alignement of someone that wasnt your opponent. They even asked you for help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, the good old "Good dragons eat humans too" debate. Funny. That's what we play the game for in shades of white, black AND grey.
White campaign: Good is good. PCs don't kill non combatants. And it works (e.g. goblins don't come back later to eat the humans).
Grey campaign: Good PCs don't kill goblins, goblins eat children from the village a day later.
Black campaign: Good PCs kill bad goblins. End of story. And it works.
What's your preferred style of game? That's what the question is all about. VERY simplified here.
Black or white campaigns are easy, grey are difficult. That's why fantasy used to be about black and white. Not realism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, the good old "Good dragons eat humans too" debate. Funny. That's what we play the game for in shades of white, black AND grey.
White campaign: Good is good. PCs don't kill non combatants. And it works (e.g. goblins don't come back later to eat the humans).
Grey campaign: Good PCs don't kill goblins, goblins eat children from the village a day later.
Black campaign: Good PCs kill bad goblins. End of story. And it works.
What's your preferred style of game? That's what the question is all about. VERY simplified here.
Black or white campaigns are easy, grey are difficult. That's why fantasy used to be about black and white. Not realism.
I think that is overly simplistic. Especially the description of the grey. In a real grey campaign you DON'T know what the goblins will or will not do. Maybe they will keep their word, maybe they will not. If the goblins ALWAYS keep there word, then it will shift to a white, if they always attack it will shift to black.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After all, if you're not passionately trying to save/kill goblins in your first campaign session, are you even playing right?
I find 'morality trap' goblins an annoying trope.
I would advise saying, "In my world goblins aren't vermin or innately evil, though some of them are evil. The Magus is in the wrong here."
Or the opposite.
Otherwise, there is no likely end point to this argument, no obvious compromise possible between 'dead goblins' and 'non-dead goblins', and no justification for either side backing down, since both of them are in the right, based on their understanding of the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You hire the goblins for food and drink (and a few copper or sparkly things) and get them to help you find the dragon. Win-Win all around.
Morag
but what if the goblins in question have only raided the town for food and their surrender was sincere?How would the party know if it was? Have you set up a world where non-evil goblins live? Is it a known factor in the world? If not, it's a pretty big leap of faith that THESE goblin are an exception to the norm.
So it's NOT that they are sincere but does the party have a realistic reason for thinking they are. Have you set the groundwork for them to think it's possible?
This, this kind of point of view is the problem here.
"how should i know this goblin was different?"
So you basicaly are saying that you can sly them, no matter the way you do it, just because the book say they are used to do evil things. You dont even need to make some investigations, because that race use to be bad, so...even if i'm the hero here i'm going to sly you and nothing will change.
This kind of argument is pretty obsolete for me. However, i'm an experienced DM not only in D&D but in human and vampire, so i'm accostumed to make my players think twice before they shot, or they will face the psicological consecuences, but i think pathfinder is a good setting to play as a real hero.
Goblins have a history of being evil. "Goblins are a race of childlike creatures with a destructive and voracious nature that makes them almost universally despised." "destructive and voracious" and "universally despised". "Most other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate."
The rest of the game world sees them as vermin to be exterminated by default. that's the way it's set up. If the DM doesn't want that to be the norm, I'd expect for the DM to make that clear BEFOREHAND. The paladin, in this case, would normally feel duty bound to kil them for the good of all races. They are LITERALLY seen on the same level as ringworms, ticks and leeches: No one cries when get rid of a disease.
If you want to know where those quotes come from , it's the race guide: they let you know what you're in for. "goblins' short memories and bottomless appetites mean they frequently go to war or execute raids against other races to sate their pernicious urges and fill their vast larders". A plague with no memory and an endless appetite that break things for fun... The ideas I put forth aren't obsolete but the starting assumption of the game.
To Graystone,
Have you even read what Graelsis said?It does not matter if the goblins have killed thousand of citizen, if they might do it again on their next opportunity.
To the paladin and to anyone claiming to be a 'good' hero, they surrender, therefor you must not kill them.
Oh, I read what they said. I just disagree. From the background info, they're to be exterminated. There is nothing to suggest they're able to make a valid surrender and even if it were, they are unlikely to keep any terms you make as they are KNOWN for short memories.
It's the equivalent of letting a rabid dog go because it acts nice once: it's just prolonging the problem. If I was running it, a paladin putting another in danger for his own inflated sense of good isn't likely to stay a paladin. They are seen as having no redeeming qualities with no ability to remember/learn. There is a reason whole races have tried to "exterminate" them as "virulent parasites" because they are seen more as a disease than a race of intelligent creatures.
Gryffe: " It means people are complex and can change, for better or worse." Only if the game has been pre-setup to make that a possibility. Without the idea that 'monster' races can be good being a given in the world's general knowledge, why assume out of character knowledge that they CAN have different ones? The players might know they could be good but why would a low level paladin?
PS: I'd find it more likely that a non-good character would interact with them as they are more likely to overlook the ever present danger they pose for person gain [info on dragon] vs a good person wanting the safety of the community as a whole.
Ok, now i'm talking serious, because it seems that nobody cared about what i said because of the comic tone i used.
You really have a big problem here. Your problem is that you are being evil with evil creatures. I will write it again, you are being EVIL with evil creatures.
Even if your enemy is a monster and you want to be good aligned or, at least, dont act like an evildoer would do, you must keep on the good side of the history here.
There's no excuse to someone that takes prissioners and sly them while they are defenseless, even if they are assasins, its not your job to judge them if you are not playing that kind of scenario.I'm talking about good aligned players here, i dont care about your neutral wizard, for me it seems that he's just a neutral evil disguised player. "Kill that vermin while they cant defend themselfs" yeah, that sound evil enough for me.
What i'm saying is that the alignement of your enemy doesnt matter when you are talking about doing something good or bad, if you kill a murderer, you are still killing, and if you are doing it for a greater good, you are a murderer for a greater good. That goblin could be good aligned and nothing would change the fact that they raided a town, right? well, the same applys for you.
It really pissed me of when my players act like this and pretend they are the good people of the history. Heroes are made by sacrifice, just as batman oath to avoid killing, even if that keeps him fighting over and over, or captain america when he had to turn into an outlaw because he believed his friend was innocent. Heroes do whatever is correct, whatever is good, whatever is need to be done because is the right thingn to do, even if that cost them to take some goblins to justice, or to believe they can redeem themselves and turn into usefull folks.
If you are not willing to do that sacrife, or you decide to take the easiest path just because its easier and you dont believe in changing, then you are not the hero of this history, and you dont need...
*Wipes a tear from the corner of his eyes*
"Wow, just wow"
"Lets cheer this year's winner of - Paladin of the Year - Graelsis!"
*Claps enthusiastically, while a couple of gorgeous looking Calistrian courtesans crowns Graelsis, with a fancy tiara and a sash with "Paladin of the year" printed on it*
"Lets give one last cheer, before we move on to the next category - Worst Paladin of the Year!"
*Cheering*
"And the Nominees are: Ragathiel!"
"..."
"..."
"And that is all..."
To Graystone,
Have you even read what Graelsis said?It does not matter if the goblins have killed thousand of citizen, if they might do it again on their next opportunity.
To the paladin and to anyone claiming to be a 'good' hero, they surrender, therefor you must not kill them.Oh, I read what they said. I just disagree. From the background info, they're to be exterminated. There is nothing to suggest they're able to make a valid surrender and even if it were, they are unlikely to keep any terms you make as they are KNOWN for short memories.
It's the equivalent of letting a rabid dog go because it acts nice once: it's just prolonging the problem. If I was running it, a paladin putting another in danger for his own inflated sense of good isn't likely to stay a paladin. They are seen as having no redeeming qualities with no ability to remember/learn. There is a reason whole races have tried to "exterminate" them as "virulent parasites" because they are seen more as a disease than a race of intelligent creatures.
Gryffe: " It means people are complex and can change, for better or worse." Only if the game has been pre-setup to make that a possibility. Without the idea that 'monster' races can be good being a given in the world's general knowledge, why assume out of character knowledge that they CAN have different ones? The players might know they could be good but why would a low level paladin?
PS: I'd find it more likely that a non-good character would interact with them as they are more likely to overlook the ever present danger they pose for person gain [info on dragon] vs a good person wanting the safety of the community as a whole.
Okey, i will write this again but in a different way, so you can see where do i think the problem is
It doesnt matter if goblins are used to kill people. It doesnt matter if goblins are common riders, and of course it doesnt matter if they are evil and they are trying to kill you.
What i'm saying is, that a good character, or at least, someone who claim he's good aligned just can't do to the goblins what they would do to him, because he's not a goblin, he's not evil and he's just not playing with the same rules.
Can you exterminate them for good? of course!, are they a vermin? of course!
Does that give you the right to tie someone and then cut his throat while he cant defend himself? of course not!, not if you are a good aligned character!
But they are vermin! they are not even threaten as creatures!
So what? now you are going to play just as the rest of the world? if you are going to be just as NPC'S, then you better refuse to be a good character. There is a GODESS up there giving you powers, you must be better than the rest of the world, even if that means to believe in some green skin little murderers.
Also, i never said they should forgive them and free them because i believe in fairies. They can take them to the closest town and imprison them, maybe a couple of months in the shadow offer the goblins some perspective about what does it feel when you are treated as scum.
I dont want to write too much, but try to think in examples you can see in our own world. In the 1940's no white man would think a black man can study, nor drink with them, nor even beeing better than any other property. Just trying to make you see that maybe, just maybe, the rules are there to make you believe in something that could be wrong. If you focus in the game, if you just PLAY your character, then there's no point in killing someone defenseless if you are pure of hearth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is overly simplistic. Especially the description of the grey. In a real grey campaign you DON'T know what the goblins will or will not do. Maybe they will keep their word, maybe they will not. If the goblins ALWAYS keep there word, then it will shift to a white, if they always attack it will shift to black.Not only that, but there's options other than "kill or not kill".
Take the goblins prisonners, send them back to the village, put them on trial for their actions.
Make them sign a magical pact that'll kill them if they break their oath.
Actually take actions to make sure they don't fall back to the dark side, for example by having them strike a bargain with the villagers (the goblins protect the village from outer threats and the village feed them in exchange).
"Grey" doesn't mean "a$*%%#+s VS goody two shoes". It means people are complex and can change, for better or worse.
Exactly, My game of choice is actualy the HERO system. In it they talk about 4 color games v. Gritty...I have always said I do 32 Color games...It is not a simplistic "Good guys ware white" but you are rewarded in minor ways for doing Good...In my game a Paladin WOULD fall for not defending the little guys, not because they claim to be good but because HE is good
I think FAR too many people go into the game with a modern 'comic book' outlook instead of a fantasy sword and magic view. Pathfinder has established that some races either are or assumed to be innately evil.
@ Good Kjeldorn
oh!..thank you!, noone have never send me a nice response like this one!, i will keep it with me ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is why I'm really sad my take on the goblins comic, with the PCs being replaceable kobolds from a single village trying to survive as Hunter gatherers in a world dominated by Graystones, failed to attract a following.
The debate of "where is the line for a good character" is interesting and is have liked to show my PCs the other shoe.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they are indeed vermin, then a good character can refuse to accept surrender. A good character cannot kill a surrendered combatant unless that creature is the level of uredeemable evil that only describes undead and evil outsiders. For these creatures, evil is part of their very nature.
So because the book says it, that means it's just plain fact, and can't ever be changed? That's not a game I want to play, personally.
We take the books on there word about what nations are next to each other, that buildings are in a town and how the rules work. I find it very odd that for some reason, when alignment comes into play, all that gets tossed out the door.
I expect the book explanation to be what the players start out knowing. Nothing in the posts from the players/dm in this situation mentioned anything about a setup in the game that altered the basic nature of the game. SO, a player that isn't using out of character knowledge SHOULD have/use that common knowledge about the race they are talking about.
Myself, I "don't want to play'" a game where the game is influenced by players knowledge/feeling over the characters knowledge/feelings. Treating the world like a 21 century modernized country in regards to morality and capturing 'villains' isn't my idea of D&D.
Should that mean there can't possibly be any non-evil aligned goblins ever?
Oh, you can and there should be. The issue at hand is 'do the PC know that it's possible?' Unless there are tales of odd non-evil members of usually evil races floating around, why would the players know it? Did they roll a high DC know check? Or are you assuming that it's just common knowledge? If you expect something outside the norm, like non-evil goblins are common enough that EVERYONE in the world knows about it, then that's something to let the players know ahead of time.
If they are indeed vermin, then a good character can refuse to accept surrender. A good character cannot kill a surrendered combatant unless that creature is the level of uredeemable evil that only describes undead and evil outsiders. For these creatures, evil is part of their very nature.
I agree in the 'default' setting, a surrender should be unlikely. However, I wouldn't be surprised for the party hear them out before refusing. For non-paladins, or non-lawful in general, it might not be thought of as evil to trick them into putting down their arms before killing them. It depends if you see them as sentient creatures that deserve to be treated fairly or as vermin that deserves to be killed. It's not evil to trick a rat into a trap to kill it, and if that's how you think of them...
As lemeres noted, a paladin of torag would go against their oath if they show any mercy or allowed surrender [except for strategy]. this shows it's LG to wipe out the goblins without a thought or trick them into surrendering so you can kill them easier... :P